Committee on Foreign Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AFET European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
The ICC this year is acting as one of the few institutions in the world able to confront the rise of violence as a measure of interpersonal connections and international relations. The beginning, in the very first years of the life of the ICC, the court was moving quite slowly. It was difficult to keep it going. And it was, in a way, muddling along with many statements and too few achievements. In the last years, we have been committing ourselves to respond to the desperate cry for truth, justice, and human dignity that comes from millions of people.
Now you see the distinguished members of the European Parliament. We are here. We are warm. We are well-fed. We are treated with respect.
We are treated with dignity. Out there, there are millions of people throughout the world who live in abuse, who are bombed, kidnapped, detained illegally, stabbed to death, discriminated against, and persecuted. And we, in the courts, think about those people every morning and every night. And I confess, on a personal note, that many nights I cannot sleep. After what I see during the day, I am unable to sleep.
I always ask myself, have I done enough? Could I do more to give them dignity? And those people, those victims, always ask us the same question. They always ask, "Why?" Why me?
Why my sister, my mother, my family, my village? What have we done? We want to know what has happened. Now, the political question before all of us, not only you but all of us as European citizens, is the following. What kind of societies do we foresee?
What kind of world do we want to leave to our children and our grandchildren? Because those millions of people see the ICC as the last resort for dignity. And if you deprive them of hope, they will hate. And hatred sheds innocent blood, and blood calls for vengeance, and vengeance sheds other innocent blood. This is the eternal cycle of violence. We can stop it.
We can stop it together. In the last four years, as you know, the world has undergone a dramatic shift, and the court is experiencing these changes. One permanent member of the UN Security Council has convicted a number of judges, mainly because we are doing our job defending children and other innocent victims. And the judges of the Ukraine chamber, over which I preside, have been convicted for up to 15 years. Another permanent member of the UN Security Council has declared the court an unusual and extraordinary threat, and they have sanctioned judges and prosecutors.
Now you will understand what it means to us. I have spent 34 years in the judiciary, in diplomacy, in university, and we are now listed or convicted together with terrorists, with thugs, with crooks, with drug traffickers. Now, what has happened right now is that there are powers out there who want to crush the International Criminal Court to make it impossible for the International Criminal Court to realize their wrong statute. But what we are doing is just what you have asked us to do. We were elected by state parties, and we are realizing the status that your states have elaborated, approved, signed, and ratified.
Now let me be very clear, and I'll go to the end, Madam Chair. We will never give up because we don't have any choice but to protect those who are in need. And for us, all victims are the same. No matter where they come from, their nationality, their ethnicity, their religion, or their gender, the courts paradoxically have never been so efficient, so active, so fast, and so committed as they are now. Many of our activities remain secret for obvious reasons, so it's not only the conflicts you have in mind.
There are many other situations we're looking at. I will only cite one: Afghanistan. We have issued a response to the leadership of the Taliban, who are making the lives of girls and women in Afghanistan impossible due to gender persecution. Women are not allowed to speak in public. They are not allowed to physically make their voice heard in the streets.
They cannot go to school. They only take low-level jobs. The courts have become truly the courts of humanity, and we beg you to oppose the stated objective of certain powers to force us, the court, to betray victims. This we will never do. I will conclude by thanking you and by recalling the many resolutions that the European Parliament has entered on the ICC, the latest of which is dated 21 January 2026.
You have expressed concern that the ICC, its officials, and cooperating partners face threats or attacks, reaffirmed its firm support for the ICJ and the ICC as essential independent and impartial judicial bodies, welcomed the EU's continued financial support of the ICC at a particularly challenging time for international justice, and deplored the persistent failure to activate the EU bloc's shield to protect the ICC from the extraterritorial effects of sanctions. We are very grateful for this. We beg you to continue supporting the court. And I will conclude by saying that I believe that, at some stage, we will all be asked by history the very same question. And the question will be: where were you?
What were you doing when those millions of people were living in misery? What were you doing when those elected by 125 free, sovereign states in the world were attacked? Where were you? Where? European citizens today are blacklisted and cannot perform basic financial operations with European companies in your territory.
My French colleague was unable to make a reservation on a European platform for a hotel in France. He was unable to. He received an email saying, "You're a listed criminal." You're not allowed to do this. This is the question we will be asked by history.
So, I believe this is our shared responsibility. And again, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Really, we are thankful. That was really impressive, if I may say so. I will have some remarks myself later. But first of all, thank you for your nice speech. I would like to open the first round of questions and comments.
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. I do not have much to say because I fully share, first, your assessment, and I am also fully in agreement with the resolution that we have passed as the European Parliament. I mean, the ICC is, in a way, even a European baby.
I mean, it's the initiation that came from us and was supported then by many other countries. I think it is essential that in this critical phase, where we have not only many conflicts but also leaders around who are as they are. But we have to remain steadfast in this regard and support what we have co-created. So everything that you said and that you pledge finds my full support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I will hand the floor to Nacho from S and D. But once I'm from the S and D group, I will proceed to take the floor. So, on 6 February 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, declaring a national emergency and authorizing asset freezes and travel bans against court officials. As a result, roughly one third of ICC judges have reportedly been affected by restrictive measures, as you just mentioned, including loss of access to credit cards, financial services, and travel-related platforms.
This development is deeply concerning. The ICC has historically played a crucial role in the global fight against impunity. It has delivered landmark judgments and arrest warrants in cases such as Thomas Lubanga Dilo, Charles Soldiers or Maribashiro, Hororo Kenyatan Uriam Brutto, post-electoral violence in Kenya, crimes against humanity in Côte d'Ivoire, and most recently, an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin concerning the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. At that time, everybody was happy. So the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and investigations concerning alleged crimes by members of the Israeli government have marked an inflection point, leading to renewed criticism of the ICC and broader questions about the credibility and resilience of international justice.
The European Parliament has consistently reaffirmed its support for the court and for the EU's blocking status as a tool to counter the extraterritorial effects of third-country sanctions, but we are still waiting for it to be activated. Questions? What discussions has the ICC had with the European Commission to ensure the effective activation and enforcement of the EU blocking status in response to these EU sanctions? And second, what additional political, legal, and financial measures can the European Union take to safeguard the independence, functioning, and institutional integrity of the ICC and to protect its judges and staff from coercive external pressure? Thank you.
Is there anybody from the ICR?
Speaker 10
Thank you. First of all, it's quite telling that ECR and the Patriots are not here. But, first of all, thank you for your remarks. And I think there is, nevertheless, very broad support in this house for the work of the ICC. And we are all quite frustrated with what happened to a number of judges of the ICC after they were put on the US sanctions list.
Speaker 8
First of all, it is unacceptable that they are put on the US sanctions list. And second, it's unacceptable that we, as the European Union, cannot protect them from the damage resulting from these sanctions. I have a few questions in this regard, actually. I mean, you said the EU, unlike ICC state parties, is not a member of the Rome Statute, but there is a cooperation agreement between the EU and the ICC. So, I'm still trying to understand what legal obligation the European Union has under this EU-ICC cooperation agreement to assist the courts and their judges.
And I know, I mean, we have asked for the blocking statute to be activated. Of course, the ICC has also asked for the blocking statute to be activated, and you have had discussions with the Commission on this. So, do you know why the Commission has not, after your outreach to them, activated the blocking statute? Did they give you any reasons? I mean, this discussion started in the summer. That's what, like, 7 months ago.
So, that's the first question I have. And the second one is that I understand the ICC is trying to shift, at the moment, when it comes to digital technologies, to financial aspects and everything away from a US focus on applications, programs, everything. What measures do you think you should focus on in order to build more digital and financial autonomy based on your experiences? What is it that is lacking, for example? What is it that you cannot replace? We would need to step up on the EU level, also for our own institution, by the way.
I mean, this whole European Parliament is run on Microsoft. It kind of scares me, and we all have these wonderful Apple phones. Your colleague yesterday in the drug committee said, and colleagues, I mean, just imagine that her Apple account was blocked overnight. Imagine they are blocking your Apple account overnight. We are all doomed.
I mean, let's be very clear, and we really need to make sure that we have a different approach to that. And then the last question is, what are the measures beyond the blocking statute? Because that's the most prominent one on the table. When it came to Greenland, we also discussed the anti-coercion instrument. Is that something you think we should also discuss with regard to the situation of the ICC?
And there is Article 70 of the Rome Statute that provides that the ICC has retaliatory power in the event of illegal offenses against its officials. Is that something you have ever considered, and what could it look like? Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Hannah. And now the floor is for the left, Mark Wodenga. Thank you, the floor is yours.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. And I thank our guest for this very detailed analysis, which we share. Now, today, we see the court under attack; that clearly is because the court is targeting, or now has got, Israel in its crosshairs. And I think, you know, if the ICC didn't tow the US line, we wouldn't be towing its line. S.
Line, we would not be where we are now. You simply did your duty. You carried out your mandate on the crimes committed by the Israeli government, especially in Gaza. So what this shows is that, aside from grand speeches on international law that have been held by various different U. S.
Administrations, we see that there are two parallel international orders: a legal international order for the Africans and so on, as people have said. And then there's the other world order for Western nations and the Americans. Well, it's true that we have voted on good tax, but I think there is some hypocrisy on the part of the European government. They're continuing to welcome members of the Israeli government. They're taking pictures of themselves, posing next to members of the Israeli government, when, in fact, the government is subject to an arrest warrant.
And I think we should have a detailed reflection on what's going on, and I'll be asking politicians and leaders to do that. I think we now need to stand up and shoulder our responsibility. If you have a prime minister who is under an arrest warrant from the ICC, should they really be allowed to cross European airspace using an aircraft? Let's be clear here. Let's not share a platform with some members of the government whose head of government is under an arrest warrant.
Now, just to repeat and echo what Hannah said a little bit. What should Europe be doing? What should it be doing better? Now I know we can call out China and Russia, but we are much more timid when it comes to the United States and will never really get tough on them unless they're really threatening territory in Greenland. So, what expectations do you have concretely and specifically?
Obviously, there's a distinction between your role and the role of a parliamentarian. I think if we really care about the ICC and its role, then surely there must be certain steps that we can take to protect your colleagues, to protect the staff of the ICC, and to protect and shield the institution as a whole. And I think it would be useful for us to have a concrete discussion about what.
Speaker 11
We can take two or three specific individual measures that can concretely support the ICC and allow it to function. Based on what you said and what I heard from your colleagues, I understand that the risk we have today is that the ICC will become powerless and unable to function. So, I think I'd like to know what measures we can take that will give some tangible, concrete protection for you and your colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 12
And I will give the floor to Chloe Dell. Please, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much. I'm going to speak French. I'd like to thank you for joining us today. We met a year ago in The Hague before Trump was re-elected. You have also come to our subcommittee here as well.
And back then, you already warned us that there was the possibility that there would be a U. S. Sanctions against the court or its judges. And you were right because just a few months later, the court prosecutor and the judges were sanctioned. And for a year and a half now, in the European Parliament, we have, in this socialist group in particular, continued to ask the European Commission to act to protect the court and its judges and to activate the blocking instrument.
And yesterday, in the DRUB subcommittee, we had someone from the commission who came, and they confirmed that they could activate the blocking instrument if a majority in the European Parliament or a majority in the Council did not prevent them from doing so. And you said in your introduction that the European Parliament voted by a majority for this instrument to be activated so that the International Criminal Court could be protected. And this still has not happened. The commission has not done anything. And we know that it's not because there is a legal obstacle here, but because there is a lack of political will to take action.
So, I think we need to keep asking for this, not only of the Commission, but also of the European heads of state, to make sure that they also make the same decision. We need to protect the ICC. And we also need to open people's eyes to the sovereignty risks here. Donald Trump is going against the ICC. He's also sanctioning judges elsewhere, such as a judge in Brazil who convicted Bolsonaro.
And this is a tactic that they are now applying. They intimidate judges when they don't like their decisions, and they feel that they can do so because they are so powerful when it comes to the economy, tech, and digital developments as well. And this is having a devastating effect. We need to be sovereign in Europe when it comes to financial and digital services so that you have alternatives to the American services you used in the past to run the ICC. So, you have our full support, and we will continue to urge the Commission to take action to protect you.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Cher. And...
Thank you so much, Vice President Raet Hala, for taking the time to meet with us today. Of course, I also share all the concerns raised by my colleagues personally. I've been asking officially, along with other colleagues including Chloe Riedel, for over one year for the European Commission to activate the blocking statute. And now we have resolutions calling to activate the blocking statute; still, no reply from the commission. Actually, I find this outrageous, and not only because we cannot abandon the victims—millions of victims—but also because we cannot put at risk the lives of the next victims.
Because, as I understand it, the work of international justice is not only to protect the victims but also to ensure accountability to deter the next crimes. And so, really, I think it's outrageous that the commission does not protect its own judiciary system, and I cannot understand why. And so, my full solidarity to the court. Then, I had some questions in my mind, but they were already brilliantly asked by Honorable Neumann. So, I will not waste your time, and thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 18
I'm going to speak French as well. We really are faced with a situation where the rule of law and European sovereignty are at risk. You said this. There were 7 countries that didn't support this in Rome, and that included the US. They are not only issuing sanctions against the ICC and its judges, but also against national courts.
Speaker 16
And this is something that is unacceptable. What I think is really unacceptable is that there is a very broad consensus when it comes to using the provisions available, the blocking instrument in particular. There were things that the commission could do on its initiative. And you would just have to have a blocking majority against it for that not to happen, but we could perhaps just be naive here. Maybe you could wonder why the commission is not acting. But we cannot accept this balance of power as it stands between the Parliament and the Commission.
If the parliament allows the commission not to act on such a fundamental issue. And we keep hearing these speeches about the rule of law, human rights, and so on. Well, we're getting these speeches from the President, the Commission, and the commissioners. But then, at the same time, they are allowing the rule of law to be eroded and the rules not to be respected. There are, of course, the trade relations between the EU and the U.S.
S. There is a digital tech and military link with the US. But yes or no, do we have a certain amount of dignity? And I think that when it comes to someone like Trump, I have been in politics for years, and I'm not a psychiatrist. But through my experience, you become a psychiatrist.
And I think that the EU does need to show, through an act from the Commission, that enough is enough. They need to activate these resources. They need to list the steps taken by the US, which are in conflict with European freedoms. And we cannot just allow the ICC to undergo these kinds of attacks. This is something that goes beyond politics.
We're talking about human dignity. It's not just about defending the court alone. We're defending humanity. Everyone who has suffered massacres and war crimes, well, we need to remember them, and we could be the same. And.
Speaker 19
Yeah. Thank you very much for your personal presentation; it was very strong. Thank you for that. When you reach my age, you will have been in a world with the biggest progress for mankind ever. If you measure the development in democracy, the fight against poverty, or life expectancy.
So you can see the progress that has taken place broadly. That's part of European history, and we all know why. Because we had a world of rules. We had a world of trying to help those who were poor, those who were in trouble. That's a world that no longer exists because of the US, because of Netanyahu, because of a couple of other guys, Putin, etc.
So, we are one of the islands of strong defense in this world of rules. And I think the good message is that we are not alone. We hear from a lot of countries. If you listen to the Canadian Prime Minister's speech in Davos, there are many countries that still want a world based on rules, order, respect, negotiations, and on doing something to help those who do not have many chances in this life. And I think the most important thing for Europe right now is to reach out to strengthen these alliances. And as another thing, could you say what else we could do, from your point of view, that we are not doing well enough now to strengthen the support we want to give the very good work you are doing?
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now, I will give the floor back to Mr. Giacor Sarrio, Salvator Aitala, for answers, ten minutes, and the floor is yours. I know there are a lot of questions for such a short time. We can give you more minutes.
Speaker 4
No, thank you very much. I'm very grateful for your words and your questions. Okay. Without any particular order, yes, we have reached out. We've been reaching out to all European institutions, including the Council and the Commission, at different levels: presidency level and working level.
What they think is not for me to say, and this is not my prerogative. I respect the European Commission and its decision. What connects to another set of questions is: what can be done beyond what has already been done? Well, first, there is a need for political support. So, whatever initiative it is, it has political significance.
For example, to my knowledge, the word ICC hasn't appeared in any council conclusions, at least during the last years. I've never seen it. Second, companies tend to overcomply with sanctions. By the way, what we are calling sanctions in international law, referring to some recent studies, are not really sanctions. Sanctions are something else.
These are legitimate means to address violations of international law. Let's say these coercive measures tend to overcomply. What does it mean? There is no reason for a European bank to close an account or deny a transaction within the European Union, within the SEPA zone, the Single Euro Payments Area. And 85% of our transactions are within that system.
But companies need to be reassured. They need to be reassured that they will not become the target of secondary sanctions. For example, they need to be reassured that there is a political willingness to allow them to continue cooperating with the court. And this we've been discussing, but I have also said there have been very useful exchanges of use with different services within the commission. Now, it will be done again, and it's not for me to say I wouldn't go that far.
Article 70, excuse me, I will not comment on decisions of the courts. This is something I cannot do. You will understand I never make comments on cases before us, not even in the upset, whether Article 7 would be applicable. I apologize for this, but it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that. However, I just wanted not to ignore your question and respond. I think one fundamental point that needs to be kept in mind is that the court is not a separate entity.
The court is part of the legal systems of all states in the European Union. The relations between the court and the internal judicial system are those of complementarity, or, if you wish, saying it from the opposite side, the primacy of internal systems. In other words, the courts would step in when state parties are genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute. So, the court is part of this system. I am not only an Italian citizen, but I am also a European judge in this respect.
Not only am I a judge in Italy, but at this very moment, I am also acting as a European judge. And this also carries a number of consequences in terms of immunity, official actions, personal immunities, diplomatic immunities, and so on. If there is any legal obligation, I think it was you, Valem, any legal obligation of the EU as such. Well, this would take us very far, but there are obligations for each member state of the European Union because all member states of the European Union are parties to the Rome Statute. And they have obligations to cooperate, to uphold immunities, to finance, and to protect their courts.
So again, I'm here humbly because, as I said at the beginning and really believe, this is the seat of European democracy. When I was young, I started university 40 years ago. The European Union, for us, was a dogma. And I lived throughout my life with the idea that there would be no world, no Italy, no nothing without the European Union. This is what my parents have passed on to me.
Now, the problem I feel as a human being is that we are giving the next generation a world which is worse than the one we've been given by our parents. And it's the first time in recent history. It is the first time, and it's very sad. Therefore, going back to the question, there are obligations of state parties, and I believe, but this is not for me to elaborate on, under the heart of the ICC. I could do it in a different academic act.
There are obligations of the institution of the European Union to protect your companies, your citizens, and anyone engaging in an area of freedom, security, justice, and respect for the dignity of any human being. There are obligations to protect your company. Maybe not directly the ICC, but yes, your companies who want to engage with us should be free from any kind of retaliation. I hope I have covered more or less the questions. So, in essence, other actions—political, technical—engage with banks and companies in order that they do not overcomply.
Now, whether the tool will be the blocking study or another is not my power to say. It's the prerogative of the commission, the council, and the parliament because you do, and in this, I can speak as a citizen. You are our political democratic body, speaking on behalf of European citizens. I will conclude by thanking you. Thank you very much, Barranca.
Thank you all. And I would like to say that we are not in this area. We are not scared. We are not slowing anything down. We are very determined.
I am proud of being European. I am proud and humbled to be part of this magnificent, beautiful, wonderful idea of a permanent cause for humanity. And again, I believe that our destinies go together. I always tell any EU state party when I have meetings, and they're always very supportive that I'm not begging for help for the court. Of course, I have the obligation to protect our staff, and I feel it.
They have their own lives. We have people from more than 100 nationalities, of any religion, any language, any ethnic group, anything. But this is something that brings us together, so it's a common challenge. And I really believe it. If the EU falls, God forbid, it will not happen.
I'm sure it will not happen. If it falls or if it is unable to work, this would be a major defeat for the European Union. It would be the end of the European dream, and I really pray this will never happen. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Giazzo Itala, for accepting our invitation. We really wish you the best of luck. Thank you for your courage and for being that brave. We will be here near the parliament, waiting anytime that you can come for the future, and this concludes our session this morning. And we'll see you all in the afternoon.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.